|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 16, 2015 18:09:57 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 16, 2015 18:27:01 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by deehope on Feb 16, 2015 18:30:33 GMT -6
Never used a hardware vu, but i owned a revive audio modded 160x and ended up selling it as the nebula library was dead on. Couldn't tell the difference. And ya they r all the King of snap on snare. |
|
|
|
Post by jeromemason on Feb 16, 2015 19:12:03 GMT -6
John uses a 160 on Martina's vocal during shows..... He has his choice of whatever he wants and that's what he uses, so folks out there use them for more than just snares, just some don't say anything about it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Feb 16, 2015 19:12:45 GMT -6
Fast and snappy, yes. The Native Insturments version is cool too, a little slower and bassier than the real thing, but cool. UA gets it pretty close to reality. I'll have to try the Waves, some of their plugins are just right-on.
I love me some cheap VCA compressors.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 16, 2015 21:29:36 GMT -6
Sorry Waves but Stillwell Audio has had a nice one for 7 years. You're a day late and a dollar short.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Feb 17, 2015 7:34:06 GMT -6
Option B sounds best to me... but then, I really don't like most dbx 160 models. The original 160 was ok, the 165 was a little better. The 160 VU was probably the best one they made until the latest 162 SL. When it comes to VCA compressors, I'll take the Focusrite Red any day of the week and twice on Sundays. And as for snare... I've never heard anything beat an 1176 Rev D, except a really good 1176 Rev F, on occasion. |
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 16,107 
|
Post by ericn on Feb 17, 2015 8:20:10 GMT -6
Sorry Waves but Stillwell Audio has had a nice one for 7 years. You're a day late and a dollar short. Yeah but I hear the waves guys in my head going "Stilwell who?" Surprised Harmon hasn't graced us with the "DBX bundle ". |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2015 8:34:19 GMT -6
Yeah but I hear the waves guys in my head going "Stilwell who?" Very true but Major Tom is a great plug. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Feb 17, 2015 13:44:54 GMT -6
Option B sounds best to me... but then, I really don't like most dbx 160 models. The original 160 was ok, the 165 was a little better. The 160 VU was probably the best one they made until the latest 162 SL. When it comes to VCA compressors, I'll take the Focusrite Red any day of the week and twice on Sundays. And as for snare... I've never heard anything beat an 1176 Rev D, except a really good 1176 Rev F, on occasion. This for the most part. I don't have experience with the Red though. I played with my 160 on snare and it's a lot like the 1176 with the fastest attack, medium release. I wouldn't call the 160 "fast", but rather like it follows the signal a lot closer than others and just goes with the flow. I did like it on snare though, although it can't beat my rev A 1176 which lives on the snare insert. |
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Feb 17, 2015 14:06:12 GMT -6
cheap alternative is an original dbx166 can be had for under $100, JW mods it for about $150, psu upgrade, op amps, and most importantly the THAT 2180-A vca, the thing has hard knee and over easy compression, with thresh/ratio controls, it's absurdly kick ass for under $300 imo.
BTW, that is 2 channels totaling $125 each fully modded!
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Feb 17, 2015 14:19:12 GMT -6
cheap alternative is an original dbx166 can be had for under $100, JW mods it for about $150, psu upgrade, op amps, and most importantly the THAT 2180-A vca, the thing has hard knee and over easy compression, with thresh/ratio controls, it's absurdly kick ass for under $300 imo. BTW, that is 2 channels totaling $125 each fully modded! A lot of the sound of the 160 is the nature of the old design, poor decoupling, loose tolerance parts, etc. A newer design or one with a bunch of upgrades wouldn't sound anything like an old 160, let alone have the mojo. |
|
|
|
Post by Martin John Butler on Feb 17, 2015 14:42:43 GMT -6
I never liked them much in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Feb 17, 2015 14:49:06 GMT -6
cheap alternative is an original dbx166 can be had for under $100, JW mods it for about $150, psu upgrade, op amps, and most importantly the THAT 2180-A vca, the thing has hard knee and over easy compression, with thresh/ratio controls, it's absurdly kick ass for under $300 imo. BTW, that is 2 channels totaling $125 each fully modded! A lot of the sound of the 160 is the nature of the old design, poor decoupling, loose tolerance parts, etc. A newer design or one with a bunch of upgrades wouldn't sound anything like an old 160, let alone have the mojo. yes to a reasonable degree, but the 160 overeasy claim to fame is maintained in the 166, and the whole parameter set is almost identical(the gate on the 166 is useless), it's just a more hifi version that I frankly prefer. I was mostly pointing out that a little more $ gets you 2 hardware channels if your looking for something with that overeasy program dependant vca sound, it's not going to sound old school. The whole sales pitch from big wig engineers pedaling the "it's indistinguishable from the real thing" is silly, especially while their sitting in front of racks and racks of the real stuff that isn't going anywhere any time soon. |
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Feb 17, 2015 14:56:31 GMT -6
I have an unmodified 166A that's good for pumping drums...stereo helps. I did end up selling my 160X a while back.
|
|
|
|
Post by svart on Feb 17, 2015 15:38:32 GMT -6
A lot of the sound of the 160 is the nature of the old design, poor decoupling, loose tolerance parts, etc. A newer design or one with a bunch of upgrades wouldn't sound anything like an old 160, let alone have the mojo. yes to a reasonable degree, but the 160 overeasy claim to fame is maintained in the 166, and the whole parameter set is almost identical(the gate on the 166 is useless), it's just a more hifi version that I frankly prefer. I was mostly pointing out that a little more $ gets you 2 hardware channels if your looking for something with that overeasy program dependant vca sound, it's not going to sound old school. The whole sales pitch from big wig engineers pedaling the "it's indistinguishable from the real thing" is silly, especially while their sitting in front of racks and racks of the real stuff that isn't going anywhere any time soon. Interesting. I have an old 166 that sits on a shelf in storage in the odd case that I need another compressor. I gotta say that it sounds nothing like the 160 at all, at least to me. I don't really use the 160 for hi-fi, I use it for character. The higher-fi 166 doesn't have any character at all. Probably a good thing for some uses, but I mostly use compressors for character rather than simply compression. |
|
|
|
Post by Randge on Feb 17, 2015 15:45:46 GMT -6
I will take a pair of Jeff's 526's or my GR 501's over them in a heartbeat. I always thought that by the time you got them thwacking a snare right the whole bottom got too murky for me.
R
|
|
|
|
Post by deehope on Feb 17, 2015 16:02:18 GMT -6
I used to think I was the only one.. I really don't like the sound. The most I can get out of it is when I use it in parallel for snare and kick. I much preferred the sound of the fmr pbc6a. I never liked them much in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by jimwilliams on Feb 17, 2015 17:46:16 GMT -6
160 VU's sound and work nothing like the dbx166 or 160X. It's more "grabby" on transients and sounds much more aggressive. The high THD adds a bit of aural excitement many love for snare and vocals.
Some claim touch anything and it's all changed/ruined. I rebuild them here all the time and can say tightening up the power supply or changing opamps/coupling caps does not change their unique characteristics. Those are created by the fet VCA and CA30xx RMS detector cans. Maybe an owner can chime in on the usefulness of those.
|
|
|
|
Post by cowboycoalminer on Feb 17, 2015 18:03:14 GMT -6
160 VU's sound and work nothing like the dbx166 or 160X. It's more "grabby" on transients and sounds much more aggressive. The high THD adds a bit of aural excitement many love for snare and vocals. Some claim touch anything and it's all changed/ruined. I rebuild them here all the time and can say tightening up the power supply or changing opamps/coupling caps does not change their unique characteristics. Those are created by the fet VCA and CA30xx RMS detector cans. Maybe an owner can chime in on the usefulness of those. This aural excitement should be noted. It adds a lot of its own vibe to the signal along with dynamic control. I like them on some vocals. They do leave a footprint. |
|
|
|
Post by robschnapf on Feb 18, 2015 2:15:03 GMT -6
Focuswrong
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Feb 18, 2015 9:45:29 GMT -6
'User Error' in most cases.  |
|
|
|
Post by robschnapf on Feb 18, 2015 10:24:12 GMT -6
I like the old stereo 164.
Really dig a 160 vu, using it by just making the threshold lights blink
But not necessarily having the meters move.
Also 160x is a different animal that shares the same model number
|
|
|
|
Post by Johnkenn on Feb 18, 2015 10:32:20 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Feb 18, 2015 10:39:06 GMT -6
For real. I assume you're the same robschnapf from Either/Or and Be The Void? Killer albums. A couple of my favorites! |
|
